The Media And Audiences Flashcards
What is the Hypodermic Syringe Model? (Passive Audiences)
This is the earliest model of media effects and popular with many people who fear the moral effects of the media. It views the media like a syringe which injects ideas, attitudes and beliefs into the audience, who are a powerless mass with little choice but to be influenced. If you see a woman washing up on TV, you will want to do the same yourself if you are a woman, and if you are a man you will expect women to do the washing up for you.
There have been films such as The Exorcist and A Clockwork Orange which have been banned, partly because of a belief that they might encourage people to copy the situations within them.
1993 Toddler James Bulger was abducted from a shopping centre in Liverpool, tortured and murdered by 2-10 year old boys. According to the press, they mimicked scenes from the film Child’s Play 3. The Sun Newspaper attempted to get other violent films banned. After this time such films were referred to as “Video nasties”.
What are the problems with the hypodermic syringe model?
- Assumes that the audience is homogenous, reacting the same way to all media.
- Assumes the audience is gullible and easily manipulated.
- Assumes the media and its owners have enormous power.
- Little evidence to support it.
What is the Two-Step Flow Model? (Active Audiences)
This is the idea that, whatever our experience of the media, we will be likely to discuss it with others. If we respect their opinion, the chances are that we will be more likely to be affected by it.
The theory calls these people opinion leaders.
Are your opinions about television, films or groups ever influenced by other people?
Do you think a friend’s ideas about a media text could ever affect your behaviour in any way? This is what some people have suggested happened in the James Bulger case - that one of the two children talked about a film he had seen and influenced the other’s behaviour pl
What are the problems with the two-step flow model?
- Opinion leaders are not one single group, and may have different opinions (e.g. teachers, parents and bosses). Therefore there could be many steps.
- It still considers the audience as passive to an extent.
- New media has disrupted the idea of ‘opinion leaders’ creating more of them and/or alternatives to them.
What is the Uses and Gratification Model? (Active Audiences)
This model is the model with the most active audiences, and the weakest effects of the media. It suggests that we use the media in any way that we want, when we want, for specific purposes.
McQuail (1972) and Lull (1990,1995) identified five main uses:
- Diversion (leisure, relaxation and escape).
- Personal relationships (either with people in the media, or though the media).
- Personal identity (e.g. music choice).
- Surveillance (e.g. the news)
- Background wallpaper (using media whilst doing other things).
It can be seen as a pluralist approach. They believe the audience is active, and if a media outlet constantly spouted ideology that the audience didn’t believe or agree with, the would have no audience, and therefore would not make money, and therefore would go out of business.
What are the problems with the uses and gratification model?
- Overestimates the ability of the audience to be critical and active.
- Underestimates the power of media and its owners.
- You could argue that although it appears as though the consumer chooses how they use the media, you could say it’s the media who ultimately provide all of those choices.
What is selective filtering? (Active Audiences)
This is an interpretivists approach. Klapper suggested people make choices and interpret what they see in media. Klapper suggests there are three filters people apply:
1) Selective exposure: people must first choose what they wish to consume and they may choose only media messages that fit in with their existing views and interests, e.g. they may refuse to watch a programme that doesn’t fit with their views.
2) Selective perception: people will react differently to the same message and may choose to accept or reject a message depending on whether it fits their views and interests, e.g. people may ignore parts of reports that don’t match their views.
3) Selective retention: people will forget material that isn’t in line with their views and inky remember media messages with which they generally agree.
An example of this could be during the Iraq war of 2003, the ‘Daily Mirror’ opposed the war, yet half of its readers were in favour of it.
What is Reception Analysis? (Active Audiences)
This suggests media texts are encoded by those who produce them. This means they contain an intended meaning which they expect audiences to believe. This encoding is the dominant hegemonic viewpoint and reflects the dominant ideology which is held by most people who work in the media. Most audiences will internet or decode media texts in the way they were intended because the dominant hegemonic viewpoint appears as the normal and reasonable position. Other audiences, though, may interpret it differently due to their social situations and experiences.
Morley applied this in a study of the BBC1 news programme ‘Nationwide’ which ran from the late 1960s to early 1980s. He found people might decode media texts in one of 3 ways:
1) The preferred or dominant reading: audience decode media texts in the way media producers intended, e.g. all benefit claimants are scroungers.
2) A negotiated reading: audiences generally accept the preferred/dominant reading but amend it to some extent to fit their own beliefs and experiences, e.g. most benefit claimants are probably scroungers but not all as they know of some really deserving cases.
3) An oppositional reading: audiences rejected the preferred/dominant reading, eg. they reject the media view.
Morley suggest the particular reading that audiences adopt will be influenced by their own knowledge and experiences, the social groups they belong to and their social characteristics. This shows audiences are heterogenous.
Criticisms:
Morley’s study wasn’t ecologically valid. It didn’t take place in people’s home environments where they normally watch television.
What is the cultural effects model? (Active)
The Neo Marxists cultural effects model suggest the media suggest do have an effect on the audience. However, it doesn’t regard audiences as simply passive consumers of media content.
This model recognises that the media are owned and heavily influenced by the dominant groups in society and their interests strongly influence the content of the media. This content mainly reflects the dominant ideology.
This model suggests the media will generally spread the dominant ideology, but it accepts audiences interpret the media they consume and may respond in different ways depending on their social characteristics and their own experiences, e.g. women may reject gender stereotyping whilst people who have positive, first hand experiences of minority ethnic groups may reject racist stereotypes. Those without these experiences may accept the media content as they have no experiences to compare it to.
Nonetheless this model suggests the media gradually influence the audience over a period of time in a sort of drip-drip effect. This gradually shapes peoples taken fro granted ideas which they see as common sense and their everyday view of the world. For example, if we see minority ethnic groups nearly always portrayed in the context of crime, over time this will form the stereotypes we have of these groups.
Therefore, media coverage of particular issues results in most people agreeing with the media’s reporting on these issues. This links with gatekeeping,
Through this process, audiences see the dominant ideology is common sense and the hegemony of this ideology is maintained.
What does competing claims about the effects of media violence?
1) Copycatting or imitation: this argues exposure to media violence causes children to copy what they see and behave more aggressively in the real world, as shown by Bandura et al’s bobo doll experiments. This links with the hypodermic syringe model.
2) Catharsis: Fesbach and Sanger argued media violence reduces violence as it allows people to live out their violent tendencies in the fantasy world of the media rather than in the real world.
3) Desensitisation: some writers have suggested repeated exposure of children to media violence has gradual ‘drip-drip’ effects, socialising audiences into accepting a culture of violence in which it is seen as a normal part of life and a legitimate way of solving problems. This means people are less sensitive when they witness real world violence, have less sympathy for victims, and have an increased likelihood of aggressive behaviour.
4) Sensitisation: Young argued exposure to violence in the media can make people more sensitive to the consequences of violence and less tolerant of real life violence.
5) Media violence causes psychological disturbance in some children: watching media violence frightens young children, causing nightmares, anxiety etc and these fears may be long lasting.
6) The exaggeration of the fear of violence: even if what is shown by the media will not make people violent, it may lead people to believe we live in a violent society. For example, those who watch more TV have exaggerated fears about crime.
What are methodological problems of research media violence?
1) It is very unethical to deliberately expose people, especially children, to violent imagery. This raises issue of harm and issues around vulnerable groups.
2) There is a problem
